Election Reform, Fraud, & Updates Thread for Monday

[Melissa G]

Election Reform, Fraud, & Updates Thread for Monday

In order to organize and document MelissaB thought it would be a good idea to have a daily thread to place items related to reform, fraud, protests, and other items. This also make it easier to "catch up" when we are away from the computer for a while.

If you see something that isn't here post it with a link to the thread and a thanks to the author. MelissaB is busy for a while so I'm taking over and Need Lots of Help posting news items!
Thanks,
Melissa G

Link to previous thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x369250

[Melissa G]

1. UK One or two reforms won't fix our democracy

Andreas Whittam Smith: One or two reforms won't fix our democracy
Our constitutional arrangements are like a very large and old machine with innumerable moving parts
16 May 2005


Restoring democracy in this country is more than reforming the voting system. This was made plain in The Independent's announcement last week of its Campaign for Democracy. In truth, the job is an intricate one that has to be conducted on a wide scale.

For Britain's constitutional arrangements are like a very large and old machine with innumerable moving parts. When one examines the various cogs, wheels, chains, levers, dials and so on, one finds that many are faulty. I'd love to see an annotated parts list.

So by all means let us push strongly for proportional representation but don't at the same time, to give one example, ignore the way the Boundary Commission works. For its task is continuously to match population to constituencies so that there is no geographical bias in the system. Yet it failed badly so far as the 2005 general election is concerned.

One reason is that Parliament has set the commission a very slow pace of work. It need only complete a review every eight to twelve years. As a result, the 2005 election was conducted on the basis of a constituency map drawn in 1995. Yet between the start of the last review and the present one, the electorate of England grew by 692,000, the equivalent of nearly 10 constituencies. The current review looks as if it won't be ready until 2006.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/andreas_whittam_smith/story.jsp?story=638617

[Melissa G]

2. AK Soft-money issue shows self-serving side of state senate

Soft-money issue shows self-serving side of state senate

It is a classic case of what happens when the foxes guard the henhouse. And this one drips with a particularly odious brand of irony.

Senators in the Alaska Legislature last weekend, led by Gene Therriault of Fairbanks, advanced a measure to bring unlimited "soft money" back into the state's electoral process. This reverses both an Alaska law and a nationwide trend. That it has been attached to the governor's "election reform" bill is a cynical and troubling manipulation of public policy for strictly self-serving purposes.

Soft money is any contribution not regulated by federal election laws, which themselves are in desperate need of overhaul. The exemption to federal laws was made, in theory, to encourage "party-building" activities that benefit the political parties in general, but not specific candidates. In practice, the loophole has become the parties' primary means of raising huge sums of money from wealthy contributors.

Recent reform efforts on the national stage are a decent enough start. But the last election cycle, heavily influenced by distortions, half-truths and outright lies supplied by soft-money-funded special-interest groups, proved that the McCain-Feingold reform bill really is no more than a starting point.

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2005/05/15/news/opinion/editorial.txt

[Melissa G]

3. American's Right to Know War News

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=-6

American's Right to Know War News
Ralph Nader, CommonDreams.org

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - An astonishing message came forth on May 12, 2005 from ABC News political unit's The Note. I shall quote verbatim from Mark Halperin and his associate editors: "We say with all the genuine apolitical and non-partisan human concern that we can muster that the death and carnage in Iraq is truly staggering. And/but we are sort of resigned to the Notion that it simply isn't going to break through to American news organizations, or, for the most part, Americans."

"Democrats are so thoroughly spooked by John Kerry's loss - and Republicans so inspired by their stay-the-course Commander in Chief - that what is hands down the biggest story every day in the world will get almost no coverage. No conflict at home = no coverage."

How to respond? There are several ways. First, ABC is right in saying there is no opposition Party on the Iraq war - as a Party. From the Democratic National Committee to the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, the party line is "wish Bush success, support the troops to die and destroy in Iraq, and keep voting $80 billion or more a year for that illegal quagmire which is breeding more terrorists and is turning the world against Washington." That is not exactly the way the Democrats are verbalizing their position, but that is what they are doing and what they are thinking in private conversations, whatever the semantic gloss they are applying.

The Democrats are taking this prolonged dive in spite of a growing majority of Americans wanting out of Iraq, now believing it was a mistake to invade Iraq (since there are no WMDs or al-Qaeda connections), and even larger majorities do not think the war-occupation is worth the price in human casualties and taxpayer dollars needed here at home. Moreover, most of the retired Generals, Admirals, diplomatic and intelligence officials were against this war of choice from the beginning as being against our national security interests.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m11757&l=i&size=1&hd=0

[Melissa G]

4. Vote just like the old days

Vote just like the old days
J.D. Prose, Times Staff
05/15/2005

BEAVER - Beaver County voters get to relive the past on Tuesday when they use paper ballots for the first time in seven years.


"I'm hoping (the primary) is going to go fine," said Commissioner Joe Spanik, who also is chairman of the county board of elections. "We're assuring (voters) that we're taking every precaution that we know of."

After the Pennsylvania Department of State's decertification of the Patriot touch-screen voting system five weeks ago, Beaver, Greene and Mercer county officials decided to use the optical-scan voting method. The three counties were the only ones using the Patriot system in Pennsylvania.

Because the Department of State's decision came so close to the primary, the state promised to pay for any additional costs the counties would incur.

http://www.timesonline.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14530637&BRD=2305&PAG=461&dept_id=478569&rfi=6

[Melissa G]

5. Alternative to e-voting is needed: the mailbox

Alternative to e-voting is needed: the mailbox

COUNTIES DESERVE A CHANCE TO TRY IT

Mercury News Editorial


Touch-screen voting machines are fine for counties, like Santa Clara, that want them. But a simple and cheap alternative -- voting by mail -- should be available for counties that don't want technology forced on them.

AB 867, which faces a key Assembly committee vote this week, would let San Mateo, Santa Cruz and five other counties switch to all-mail balloting for the next five years as a large-scale pilot program. If voting by mail works as predicted, the Legislature should give every county the choice of adopting it.


snip
It also would solve an immediate problem. The federal government has decertified the optical-scan system that the county uses, as of the primary election in 2006. Without the mail option, Registrar Warren Slocum says the county, together with the state, might have to buy more than $6 million worth of touch-screen machines.

Slocum says the county could save as much as $5 million more over four years by not having to hire and train poll workers. It would still buy some touch-screen machines for regional centers to accommodate disabled and late voters.



http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/11652949.htm

[Melissa G]

6. Bill Moyers Fights Back

Bill Moyers Fights Back

John Nichols
Sun May 15, 3:40 PM ET



Bill Moyers is not taking attacks by Bush administration allies on public broadcasting in general and his journalism in particular sitting down.



"I should put my detractors on notice," declared the veteran journalist who stepped down in January as the host of PBS's Now with Bill Moyers, who recently turned 70. "They might compel me out of the rocking chair and into the anchor chair."

Moyers closed the National Conference on Media Reform in St. Louis on Sunday with his first public response to the revelation that White House allies on the board of directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have secretly been holding PBS in general -- and his show in particular -- to a partisan litmus test.

Recalling former President Richard Nixon's failed attempt to cut the funding for public broadcasting in the early 1970s, Moyers said, "I always knew that Nixon would be back -- again and again. I just didn't know that this time he would ask to be the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050515/cm_thenation/12484/nc:742

[MelissaB]

9. Here is a link to Moyers at the Media Reform conference

on Democracy Now! I wish everybody at DU would watch this clip.



In his first public address since leaving PBS six months ago, journalist Bill Moyers responds to charges by Kenneth Tomlinson - the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting - of liberal bias and revelations that Tomlinson hired a consultant to monitor the political content of Moyers' PBS show "Now." We spend the hour playing an excerpt of Moyers' closing address at the National Conference on Media Reform in St. Louis, Missouri.


http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2005/may/video/dnB20050516a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=07:38

[MadSal]

16. Bill Moyers article also on front page of Capital Times today!

in Madison, WI. Here is that link!

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/index.php?ntid=40130&ntpid=5

The credit at the end says about the author,

"John Nichols is associate editor of The Capital Times and was one of the organizers of the National Conference on Media Reform. This article originally appeared on the Web site of The Nation magazine, for whom Nichols is a correspondent. E-mail: [email protected]."

(GO, Madison!) He has written other articles about the election fraud so he is a believer. Oddly, they did not run "The Silent Scream of the Numbers" though, and I don't understand why.

[Wilms]

7. Election commission wants to hear from voters on ballot procedures

Election commission wants to hear from voters on ballot procedures

By Rose Ann Pearce

The Morning News


FAYETTEVILLE -- The Washington County Election Commission wants to hear from county voters before deciding on voting procedures to comply with a new federal law.

-snip/more-

The concern centers on the county's ability to store, maintain, transport and program new machines before each election, Burrow said Friday after the election commission received the state's letter.

"We're very happy with the system we have," Burrow said. The county's voting system, using paper ballots, tabulated by electronic counters, was purchased as a result of a referendum in 1988 or 1990.

Of the three options, the system used by Washington County would not be fully compliant with the federal voting act unless the county also conducted a voter education program. The education program would focus on explaining to voters how to correct any error they made in balloting.

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2005/05/15/news/fayetteville/05wash.txt

[Wilms]

8. 5/17 L.A. Board of Supes Meeting-we need people there

CALIFORNIA ELECTION PROTECTION NETWORK

Details and discussion, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x369845

[MelissaB]

10. Poor Sport: Jim Lampley And The State Of American Liberalism

Poor Sport: Jim Lampley And The State Of American Liberalism

By Aaron Goldstein (05/16/05)

So what is the biggest crime in the history of the United States?

Most would probably point to the al Qaeda terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 that took 3,000 lives and launched our war on terrorism.

Some of an older generation might remind us of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 that prompted our entry into World War II.

Others still might not point to a single event but rather to a stain on our history that might not ever entirely be cleansed. The slavery of blacks comes to mind. Ever after their emancipation, blacks were deemed second class citizens for nearly another century.

But according to Jim Lampley, the biggest crime in the history of the United States is not slavery. It is not the attack on Pearl Harbor. Nor is it September 11th.

For Lampley, the biggest crime in the history of the United States is the 2004 Presidential Elections.

To be exact, the elections themselves were not the crime but rather their outcome.

>>>snip

Lampley’s description of President Bush’s re-election as the biggest crime in American history is emblematic of the state of liberalism in America. Lampley, like many liberals, had a beef not with the election process but its outcome. Lampley, like many liberals, simply cannot accept the fact that President Bush was re-elected fair and square. Lampley, like many liberals, cannot fathom that a critical mass of their fellow countrymen proudly support President Bush. Lampley, like many liberals, cannot fathom the thought that there might actually be people who hold opinions that are different from their own. Lampley, like many liberals, are unable to distinguish real tyrants like Chavez from imagined ones. Lampley, like many liberals, is bankrupt and bereft of ideas. If Lampley has a better idea as to how this country should be governed let’s hear it. But instead of putting forth viable alternatives, Lampley and the liberal ilk are content to scream “fraud” and engage President Bush and those who support him with childish name calling. It is this kind of behavior that we are presently witnessing from Senate Democrats (and sadly, a few Republicans) concerning John Bolton and the President’s judicial appointments.

Lampley is no more sophisticated than the Senate Democrats. Come to think of it, Lampley is no more sophisticated than the folks who walked away from Kerry’s “victory” party in Boston’s Copley Square. Those people pushed, shoved, spat and swore at anyone who was wearing a Bush-Cheney ’04 sticker or was chanting, “Four More Years!!!” So much for an exchange of ideas. Lampley may not have physically accosted anyone or used foul language. But like those who awaited a Kerry victory and did not get one instead of graciously accepting the setback and living to fight another day Lampley has demonstrated himself to be nothing more than a poor sport.


More: http://www.americandaily.com/article/7776


Edited to add discussion link here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x369887

[MelissaB]

11. Can Florida’s Election Officials Ignore the Law? - Circuit Court ...

Can Florida’s Election Officials Ignore the Law? - Circuit Court Deliberates Manual Recount Problems with Touchscreen Voting Machines

Florida - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and a coalition of national groups concerned with voting integrity filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a seminal e-voting case brought by Florida Congressman Robert Wexler and others. Florida law requires manual recounts in close races. Rep. Wexler's case argues that when Florida election officials purchased touchscreen voting machines that do not leave a paper trail, they prevented true manual recounts and violated this law. The Congressman also argues that the touchscreen voting machines violate federal constitutional law.

i-Newswire, 2005-05-17 - Wexler lost at the district court level and now appeals to the 11th Circuit Court. In its brief, EFF lists 17 examples in which touchscreen voting machine models used in Florida experienced significant problems -- including throwing election results into doubt -- because they were not designed to allow manual recounts. EFF also noted that a number of currently available technologies preserve the ability to conduct manual recounts, meaning that Florida election officials are simply choosing to use machines that flout state law. "While touchscreen voting machines offer some promising advances, critical shortcomings still exist in both design and implementation, not the least of which is a failure to allow for meaningful recounts," said EFF Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "With better solutions available for Florida voters, systems that ca't be audited simply have to go."

"In the aftermath of the 2004 election, we saw county after county engage in phony 'recounts' on touchscreen machines that lacked paper trails. If the 11th Circuit Court recognizes that true manual recounts are not possible on these machines, it will not only help Florida voters, it could help encourage election officials across the country to choose voting technologies that increase, rather than decrease, voter confidence," added EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn.

Joining EFF on the brief are Common Cause, People for the American Way Foundation, VerifiedVoting.org, Center for Constitutional Rights, Computer Scientists for Social Responsibility, and Voters Unite.

For more information about e-voting, visit EFF's website.

Contacts:

Cindy Cohn
Legal Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
[email protected]

Matt Zimmerman
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
[email protected]


Link: http://i-newswire.com/pr20574.html

[MelissaB]

12. Buzz Flash interview with Matt Kohn who did a documentary on voting

BuzzFlash interview: Matt Kohn
Going after the Electoral College and America's failed electoral system

There's only one way to get rid of corrupt politicians like Tom DeLay -- it's voting them out of office. The problem is that America's voting and electoral system is plagued with problems. There is a crisis looming whether our future elections will have any legitimacy with the growth of computer -- and paperless -- voting machines. Before we can vote the crooks out and have a true democracy in our country, we have to fix our voting system first.

That's the thrust of a new documentary, "Some Call It Democracy," by director Matt Kohn, a balanced and resourceful film that peers into America's voting system and finds there are more problems than meet the eye. Kohn analyzes the overarching and systemic problems with how we vote -- mainly pinpointing that the people who run our electoral system are partisan for one political party or another. Kohn not only retraces all the many subplots in the theft of the 2000 presidential election, but he also probes much deeper and asks how the Electoral College, by its very existence, suppresses voter turnout in non-battleground states. Lastly he delves into the myriad of problems and potential corruption with computer voting.

Kohn's documentary is supported with thoughtful interviews with such speakers as Representative Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), investigative reporter Greg Palast, John Nichols from The Nation, and Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ), the sponsor of legislation to mandate a paper trail for computer voting machines. Kohn also interviewed Professor Alan Dershowitz and Vincent Bugliosi and a host of other constitutional law professors about the Supreme Court's ruling that handed the presidency to George W. Bush.

"Some Call it Democracy" is playing on May 17th and May 21st at the San Francisco Documentary Film Festival. Or you can check out http://www.callitdemocracy.com for more information.

Scroll down at the link for the interview.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=19058

[MelissaB]

13. After the fall: George W Bush in trouble

After the fall: George W Bush in trouble

Republican divisions and a revival of Democratic energies are striking features of American politics six months after George W Bush’s election victory, reports Todd Gitlin.

The American calamity of the presidential election of 2 November 2004 triggered a predictable sequence of mourning, rage, despair, and inertia on the American left. Six months on, oppositional energies are bubbling, though perplexity also endures.

About mourning, rage, despair and inertia, nothing in particular need be said. Visible gloom appeared like overnight wrinkles upon blue, Democratic, state faces. As days stretched into weeks, the stunned legions of John Kerry seemed to speak only in mutters and murmurs. Theories of the defeat circulated, though none carried more than limited conviction. For months, Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, America’s prime venue for truth-telling satire, surrendered its edge. Even activists’ declarations of interest in taking up residence in politically more congenial climes – Canada, Britain, anywhere – seemed to lose energy as they caromed about. Mourners mournfully echoed Joe Hill’s injunction, “Don’t mourn, organise!” as they floundered, disorganised.

But mourning became tedious and the more promising sequel of resolve has been more interesting. Many, probably most, of the thousands of activists who had buzzed into swing states in the weeks leading up to election day have gone back to life as usual; but a perhaps surprising number flexed their electronic muscles and signed on for new efforts. Moveon.org now claims 3 million online supporters, and now feels confident enough to start to charge those who wish to mobilise “meetups”. The defeated John Kerry claims 3 million of his own – presumably overlapping. Online mobilisation continues for lobbying efforts, and money pours in.

The debate about policies is predictable and still inconclusive. Should Democrats speak in the language of the faithful? (The balance of opinion, I would guess, is no, though the point is heatedly contested.) Should they trim back their opposition to curbs on abortion in favor of programmes that would make it “safe, legal, and rare,” in Bill Clinton’s phrase? (The balance of opinion is yes, though again, many devils scamper amid the details.) As retroactive support for the Iraq war dwindles below 50%, what should the Democrats say about the occupation, and about foreign policy generally? (Not much, says the going consensus. An isolated, left-wing fringe continues to press for rapid withdrawal.)

Meanwhile, a small but hardy band of activists continues to pursue the theory that voting machines were rigged for Bush, thus accounting for the fact that the tabulated results were systematically more pro-Bush than the usually reliable exit polls. There remain tantalising questions – casually dismissed by the media – about how such a pattern might have been possible, though to claim a conspiracy of multi-state fraud involving several different vote-tallying devices without any evidence is, to say the least, premature.

More: http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-3-77-2507.jsp

Discussion here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x369899

[MelissaB]

14. ( KFOXtv.com, TX) Dona Ana County Voting Machines Useless?

Dona Ana County Voting Machines Useless?

After all the money Dona Ana County has spent on their touch screen voting machines, they're no good under New Mexico state law.

That's because the machines do not leave a paper trail, which is a requirement that was just passed in this year's legislative session.

Dona Ana County, along with other counties who now have the same problem, will have until the end of 2006 to fix the problem.

The touch screen machines were purchased in 2004, and have still not been used in a single election.

Link: http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/4492567/detail.html

[Wilms]

15. On Compulsory Voting and Income Inequality in a Cross-Section of Countries

IDB Research Department

On Compulsory Voting and Income Inequality in a Cross-Section of Countries

Author: Chong, Alberto
Olivera, Mauricio

Published: May 2005

This paper explores the link between compulsory voting and income distribution using a cross-section of countries around the world. Our empirical cross-country analysis for 91 countries during the period 1960-2000 shows that compulsory voting, when enforced strictly, improves income distribution, as measured by the Gini coefficient and the bottom income quintiles of the population. Our findings are robust to changes and additions to our benchmark specification. Since poorer countries suffer from relatively greater income inequality, it might make sense to promote such voting schemes in developing regions such as Latin America. This proposal assumes that bureaucratic costs related with design and implementation are not excessive.

http://www.iadb.org/res/index.cfm?fuseaction=Publications.View&pub_id=WP-533